Recurring concern

Telephone triage that is unreliable and can delay necessary care

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 27 May 2016•Latest report 11 May 2026

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures dedicated to the telephone triage process, including unclear triage purpose, inadequate recording or information sharing, unreliable access, insufficient audit and delays in escalation or admission.

Not included

  • Excludes generic recordkeeping or communication failures not explicitly tied to telephone triage.
  • Excludes delays or access problems in services that do not form part of a telephone triage process.
  • Excludes unrelated staffing, training or system failures unless they directly impair telephone triage safety.
Reports
33

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
46

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2016–2026

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
43

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

NHS England16
Department of Health and Social Care7
NHS Pathways6
Royal College of General Practitioners4
Care Quality Commission3
NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board3
Association of Ambulance Chief Executives2
Asthma + Lung UK2
DHU 111 (East Midlands) CIC2
North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust2
South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust2
Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust2
Appello Limited1
Ashton Medical Centre1
Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Liverpool and the Wirral

    AI-generated summary

    James CAMPION · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    James Campion, aged 57, died after consuming mirtazapine and alcohol following contact with the Psychiatric Crisis Team about taking an overdose. An ambulance was not allocated until six hours after the initial call, and he was found deceased at home when the crew arrived. The principal concerns were delays in mental health assessment, call triage and ambulance dispatch, alongside inadequate family contact information and limited family involvement.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Delays in triaging emergency calls involving threats of overdose

    Wider context from the report

    “The delay in triaging the call made by Mr Campion threatening to take an overdose resulted in him taking the overdose. The delay in the ambulance dispatch prevented Mr Campion receiving medical treatment and further psychiatric assistance. The outcome for Mr Campion has been adversely impacted due to the demand on the ambulance service . At the time of the 999 call on 21st July 2022 NWAS were operating at Level 4 of the Plan (PSP) experiencing high demand, acute pressures and high numbers of waiting calls. The options for the emergency services were extremely limited and an ambulance was deployed at the earliest opportunity. Consideration be given to how to support the Ambulance and Mental Health Services in fulfilling the NHS long-term plan for Mental Health, in particular Mental Health Practitioners in Ambulance control rooms. ”

    Source location

    James CAMPION · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Deploy mental health professionals in 999 call centres and clinical assessment services to direct people in crisis to appropriate care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “To supplement this new NHS111 offer, we are also deploying mental health professionals in 999 call centres and clinical assessment services to help ensure that people experiencing a mental health crisis are directed towards appropriate services.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 28 December 2023

    Open published response
  2. Herefordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Ronald Leslie HARRIS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Ronald Leslie Harris’s family contacted the practice in April 2023 about worsening mental health difficulties and requested further help, but a routine appointment was offered with a stated 4–6 week wait and no follow-up call was made. He died by suicide on 5 June 2023. Concerns included incomplete triage documentation, failure to make the requested call, and the triage doctor’s lack of awareness of the waiting time and the telephone-call transcript; a review of mental-health triage protocols was noted, but no revised protocol had been advised by the inquest.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to consider telephone call transcripts during triage

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The Inquest was advised the triage Doctor was not aware of the waiting time for a routine appointment (4-6 weeks) nor did he consider the transcript of the telephone call. ”

    Source location

    Ronald Leslie HARRIS · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement a process allowing clinicians to listen to the patient’s phone call when an online triage form is unavailable.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We also noted learning from this event and have since implemented a new process whereby if an online form was not available for a clinician, they are able to arrange to listen to the phone call.”

    Source location

    Response from Hereford Medical Group
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 October 2023

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The telephone call contained nothing that would have influenced the GP’s triaging outcome.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All triaging GPs are aware of how to find appropriate triage appointments. Calls are not routinely transcribed at the practice; when the Significant Event Analysis (SEA) meeting took place we ensured that a copy of the transcription was available to confirm what the receptionist advised was reflected in the call. We believe that nothing was discussed in the telephone call that would have influenced the triaging outcome.”

    Source location

    Response from Hereford Medical Group
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 October 2023

    Open published response
  3. Liverpool and the Wirral

    AI-generated summary

    Philip John BATTLE · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Philip John Battle died by suicide on 8 July 2022 after contacting the ambulance service about an overdose and an attempted hanging. The report raised concerns that the ambulance triage process focused on physical health rather than immediate mental-health and self-harm risks, and that no attempt was made to contact someone who could check on his safety. It also identified limited coordination and shared mental-health crisis resources between ambulance, police and health services.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of ambulance triage to identify a person who could check the caller’s safety

    Wider context from the report

    “Evidence has been received that Philip Battle self-referred to the ambulance service stating he had taken an overdose and that he had tried to hang himself. The then triage system (medical priority dispatch) concentrated on questions relating to physical health such as his physiological function rather than assessing the actual presenting risks from poor mental health including self-inflicted fatal harm. Mr Battle lived in warden monitored sheltered accommodation and no inquiry was made about whether someone could be telephoned to check on his safety. Even if Mr Battle had not been in sheltered accommodation, it was unclear as to why there was no triage question about a phone number for a friend or relative. Evidence was given that NWAS work with Lancashire police and the health service in Blackpool with the Synergy project sharing the resources of a triage mental health car. These arrangements and relationships do not exist in Liverpool. The Court was concerned about silo - public health working between Blue light services - given the limited mental health intervention resource for NWAS was not on duty on the morning of 8th July and there was no call to Merseyside Police to see if its Mental Health triage car was available to intervene. Evidence was heard that these services need commissioning and there was no arrangement between Merseyside Police and the NWAS to share mental health intervention resources. This issue appears to become more important when the court heard of the plans for three mental health ambulances to be available in Merseyside and Cheshire in the near future. The Court would like the ambulance service, Police and health providers to work together with the public funds at their respective disposal to develop in concert and to share community mental health crisis intervention resources for the good of the public. ”

    Source location

    Philip John BATTLE · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report
  4. South Wales Central

    AI-generated summary

    Maria Immocalata Whale · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Maria Immocalata Whale, aged 67, suffered a fatal pelvic haemorrhage and abdominal wall haematoma at home on 29 June 2021 after experiencing increasing abdominal pain. The report identifies concerns about the inability of the Out of Hours GP service to provide assistance, the delayed ambulance response, and emergency triage that did not adequately assess the gravity of her condition.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the 999 emergency triage questionnaire to adequately measure clinical gravity

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) During the repeated calls to the 999 Emergency Services, ████████ was advised the following: i) there were no resources available; ii) Mrs. Whale did not meet the criteria to have an elevated priority status; and iii) when asked to define the degree of pain suffered on a scale of 1-10 Mrs. Whale (who was screaming in agony) responded “11”. ████████ stated in Court that the call responder concluded that if Mrs. Whale could scream then she was not a priority. Within an hour of this conversation Mrs. Whale had died without any emergency support and in agony. ████████ Clinical Director of Cardiff and Vale UHB Urgent Care Service confirmed in Court that the Out of Hours (OoH) GP service had two GPs on duty that night – one of whom was attending a patient while the other was assisting the triage nurses. It was also confirmed that for the period during which ████████ had called the OoH service, the numbers of calls were comparatively low. Under oath, Dr. ████████ stated that the advice given to ████████ by the triage nurse was correct – either to take Mrs. Whale to hospital by taxi or call 999. He confirmed that the triage nurse had recognised Mrs. Whale was gravely ill. He disagreed that the second GP should have attended Mrs. Whale saying that the GP could neither have assisted with the diagnosis nor with accessing emergency transport to hospital by advising the 999 service of the urgency of the need for hospital admission. Pain relief provision by the OoH GP service was not mentioned. Dr. ████████ was adamant that an OoH GP would have been unable to expedite Mrs. Whale’s access to hospital even though the gravity of her condition was accepted. He was similarly adamant that a GP attending Mrs. Whale would not have been able to communicate the gravity of her condition to the emergency services any better than a lay person - in this case the distressed husband. Again, provision of pain relief was not mentioned. The 999 Emergency Service triage patients for priority depending on the response provided by a person close at hand to the patient, to a series of scripted questions. The Welsh Ambulance Service Trust has advised the following: • Red calls are the highest clinical priority and are deemed immediately life threatening e.g. cardiac arrest; • Amber 1 calls have a high clinical priority and are still considered a life threatening emergency e.g. chest pain; • Amber 2 calls have urgent clinical priority, are serious but not considered immediately life threatening, for example diabetic problems; and • Green calls are not considered to have urgent clinical priority and are not considered serious or life threatening. ████████ in responding to these questions advised his wife was not a priority. Clearly, the triage questionnaire did not adequately measure the gravity of Mrs. Whale’s condition, as within two hours of being graded a ‘non-priority’ she was declared life extinct. ”

    Source location

    Maria Immocalata Whale · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The prioritisation questions are not considered inappropriate; patient harm is attributed primarily to the Trust’s inability to respond promptly.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “At this time the Trust does not intend to adjust the prioritisation questioning, as the issue is not so much the appropriateness of the questions but rather the harm caused by the Trust not being able to respond in a timely manner.”

    Source location

    Response from Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust
    Page 2 · response
    Published 21 November 2022

    Open published response
  5. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Paul Alexander Meadows · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Paul Alexander Meadows was found dead at home on 4 August 2021 after taking a Codeine overdose, against a background of physical health difficulties and deteriorating mental health. The report identified concerns that his mental health crisis was not recognised by the First Response Service on 3 August 2021 and that there was no onward referral for urgent or emergency intervention. It also identified broader concerns about the time available to practitioners to gather information and properly triage and risk assess callers, linked to workload and recruitment pressures.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient practitioner time to gather information and conduct triage and risk assessment

    Wider context from the report

    “The Norfolk & Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust accepted that there were broad issues in relation to thoroughness of risk assessment and safety planning in other cases as well as Paul’s case. There were inconsistencies in judgement of triage scale and the level of professional curiosity around risk and suicidal ideation. It was accepted that, in Summer 2021, due to resource pressure – specifically, a discrepancy between the anticipated activity and the actual, significant, volume of callers, there were occasions when First Response Service practitioners did not have enough time to gather the required information and properly to triage and risk assess. The evidence was that, although the position now varies considerably from day to day, due in particular to difficulties with vacancies it would be unfair to say that staff do not still feel pressured at times on calls. The evidence was that the difficulties in recruitment are associated with differences in funding for the First Response Service between the commissioners for different counties. For example, there is a significant difference between the funding available to Norfolk and to Suffolk, despite both counties having a similar volume of calls. The Commissioners are aware of the number of calls unanswered because of practitioners being unable to take the calls received and the matter remains one that is raised with the Commissioners on an ongoing basis and subject to ongoing negotiation. Nevertheless, the Court has, to recap, received evidence that, given difficulties in recruitment arising out of the level of funding received by the First Response Service in Suffolk, it remains the position that practitioners do not always have sufficient time on calls to gather the required information and properly to triage and risk assess. Where, for these reasons, First Response practitioners are not able properly to triage and risk assess, this creates a risk of future deaths that will occur or will continue to exist in the future. The evidence was also that this is not just a concern in one county, but one that is experienced nationally. ”

    Source location

    Paul Alexander Meadows · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Repurposed the First Response Service and transitioned access to NHS 111 option 2 to refocus crisis response.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Suffolk and North East Essex Integrated Care System (ICS) and NSFT agreed to repurpose the FRS and transition to NHS111 option 2. This would refocus the service to revert to the ‘Crisis’ Response service that was initially planned. This change in April 2022, has seen a reduction in calls and abandonment rate and seen an improvement in call response times. It has also helped the team to spend more time with individuals who are accessing the service.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Suffolk and North East Essex
    Page 3 · response
    Published 23 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Continue working with NSFT to reduce team vacancies and improve the crisis-service offer in Suffolk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• The ICS will continue to work with NSFT to reduce the number of vacancies in the team and continue to improve the offer for people who are experiencing a mental health crisis in Suffolk.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Suffolk and North East Essex
    Page 3 · response
    Published 23 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Expand and diversify the types of mental health workforce roles available.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Turning to your matter of concern regarding staff vacancies, we are fully committed to attracting, training and recruiting the mental health workforce of the future. Through our plans set out in ‘Implementing the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health’ and ‘Stepping Forward to 2020/2021: The mental health workforce plan for England’, we have expanded and diversified the types of roles that are available.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Invest £111 million in 2021/22 to grow the mental health workforce.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The NHS Mental Health Implementation Plan 2019/20–2023/24 sets out the need for the mental health workforce to grow by over 27,000 during this time frame, to support the expansion and transformation of NHS mental health services and give an extra two million people the mental health support they need. We invested £111 million in 2021/22 to grow the mental health workforce to deliver these ambitious commitments. Further, Health Education England and NHS England have been working with Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) to confirm plans to 2024. The aim is for every ICS to look at everything they can do to meet the Implementation Plan ambition, including through innovative service models, increasing supply, and improving retention and recruitment.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Funding did not directly determine recruitment capacity, and the service was adequately funded initially.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Suffolk adequately funded the service from the outset but were not able to financially respond to the sudden increase caused by the request to make the service accessible to anyone with a mental health query. The Suffolk First Response Service was further advanced than the Norfolk equivalent service when the FRS went live in March 2020 and initially supported Norfolk calls too whilst the Norfolk service offer was further developed.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Suffolk and North East Essex
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    The service could not financially respond to the sudden increase in demand caused by its expanded remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• Suffolk adequately funded the service from the outset but were not able to financially respond to the sudden increase caused by the request to make the service accessible to anyone with a mental health query. The Suffolk First Response Service was further advanced than the Norfolk equivalent service when the FRS went live in March 2020 and initially supported Norfolk calls too whilst the Norfolk service offer was further developed.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Suffolk and North East Essex
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Local commissioners are responsible for deciding service provision and ensuring services meet local population needs.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With regards to differences in funding available to Norfolk and to Suffolk, NHS England is responsible for determining allocations of financial resources to Integrated Care Boards from April 2022. The allocations process uses a statistical formula to make geographic distribution fair and objective, so that it more clearly reflects local healthcare need and helps to reduce health inequalities. Local commissioners are responsible for decisions about the provision of services in their area and ensuring that they meet the needs of the local population.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 2 · response
    Published 23 September 2022

    Open published response
  6. Central and South East Kent

    AI-generated summary

    Daniel Robert Ludlam · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Daniel Robert Ludlam died at the scene on 30 December 2019 after an obstructed hiatus hernia caused gastrointestinal haemorrhage and hypovolemic shock. Concerns included that NHS Pathways triage did not specifically account for callers with learning disabilities, and that the absence of a suitable procedure could lead to incorrect triage or delays in sending paramedic support, particularly where no carer was available to assist communication.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of a procedure or specific protocol for callers with learning disabilities

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The NHS Pathways triage system for the calls that were made did not appear to take specific account of the patient who had a learning disability. Daniel could not communicate accurately his symptoms, and specifically would give the responses that he felt the call handler wanted to hear. He could not understand the questions being asked during the NHS Pathways triage. (2) There appears to be no procedure or specific protocol in place to deal with a caller with learning disabilities, save for an early exit from the triage Pathway to request a clinician review. I am concerned that in similar future cases, either the information being given will not result in the correct triage category being reached, or any exit from the pathway to seek clinician input may result in a delay in sending out a paramedic crew. (3) The carer assisting Daniel had to interpret the questions from the call handler in a way that Daniel could easily understand and then relay the responses back. In the future a call may come in from someone with learning disabilities who does not have a carer present to assist with the interpretation of the questions and to advocate on their behalf. Without there being a policy in place to deal with callers who cannot easily communicate or understand the questions, there is a risk of future death which could occur. ”

    Source location

    Daniel Robert Ludlam · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of NHS Pathways triage to take account of callers with learning disabilities

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The NHS Pathways triage system for the calls that were made did not appear to take specific account of the patient who had a learning disability. Daniel could not communicate accurately his symptoms, and specifically would give the responses that he felt the call handler wanted to hear. He could not understand the questions being asked during the NHS Pathways triage. (2) There appears to be no procedure or specific protocol in place to deal with a caller with learning disabilities, save for an early exit from the triage Pathway to request a clinician review. I am concerned that in similar future cases, either the information being given will not result in the correct triage category being reached, or any exit from the pathway to seek clinician input may result in a delay in sending out a paramedic crew. (3) The carer assisting Daniel had to interpret the questions from the call handler in a way that Daniel could easily understand and then relay the responses back. In the future a call may come in from someone with learning disabilities who does not have a carer present to assist with the interpretation of the questions and to advocate on their behalf. Without there being a policy in place to deal with callers who cannot easily communicate or understand the questions, there is a risk of future death which could occur. ”

    Source location

    Daniel Robert Ludlam · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Train health advisors and clinicians to engage appropriately with people with learning disabilities.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With reference to your first concern around the system not taking into specific account of patients who have not been able to understand the questions asked, I would like to assure you that all health advisors and clinicians are trained on engaging with people with learning disabilities and this forms part of core training. NHS Pathways staff are monitored against the competency framework so staff competency is checked on an ongoing basis.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Monitor NHS Pathways staff competency against the competency framework.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With reference to your first concern around the system not taking into specific account of patients who have not been able to understand the questions asked, I would like to assure you that all health advisors and clinicians are trained on engaging with people with learning disabilities and this forms part of core training. NHS Pathways staff are monitored against the competency framework so staff competency is checked on an ongoing basis.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing NHS Pathways training, competency monitoring and adaptive triage, including clinician takeover, are considered sufficient for callers with learning disabilities.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “With reference to your first concern around the system not taking into specific account of patients who have not been able to understand the questions asked, I would like to assure you that all health advisors and clinicians are trained on engaging with people with learning disabilities and this forms part of core training. NHS Pathways staff are monitored against the competency framework so staff competency is checked on an ongoing basis.”

    Source location

    Response from Department of Health and Social Care
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 September 2022

    Open published response
  7. Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire

    AI-generated summary

    Esma GUZEL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Esma Guzel, aged five, died on 10 May 2019 after developing vomiting and abdominal pain due to complications of a congenital diaphragmatic hernia. After a GP assessment and subsequent deterioration, the 111 service advised attendance at an out-of-hours GP service, where she arrived in cardiac arrest and could not be resuscitated. The principal concerns relate to questioning about vomitus, the 111 algorithm’s assessment and disposition, and referral to paediatric services.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to consider the timing of requests for advice in 111 dispositions

    Wider context from the report

    “I have presented with evidence prior to and at inquest, that diligent questioning as to the nature of vomitus in a five-year-old patient, would have alerted a competent practitioner to the requirement for urgent hospitalisation. The facts of this case are that with the child continuing to be unwell eight hours later, the 111 algorithm led to her being driven by her father to an out-of-hours GP run service with no accessible paediatric infrastructure, where she arrived in a state of cardiac arrest. The 111 algorithm has been subject to modification in the light of these events, but I remain concerned that there is no detailed assessment of the degree of apparent concern, no accommodation of the prior direct review by a general practitioner, and no consideration of the timing of the request for advice, when reaching a disposition that does not involve referral to paediatric services. It is difficult to reconcile professional opinion that this patient should have been referred to paediatric services on the basis of features at 5 PM but not in the small hours of the morning with a deterioration in her condition by that stage. I have heard in evidence that an educational message on ‘rare causes for common symptoms’ could be circulated as a case report, but take the view that the lead professional bodies for both general practice and child health should consider how such information is effectively disseminated, and whether the algorithms and dispositions generated by the 111 service need further modification to maximise the chance of expedited optimal care for what is acknowledged to be an uncommon condition. I have heard in evidence that the 111 service is the default safety net arrangement in such circumstances, and this therefore requires endorsement by your professional bodies, if it is to command the confidence of patients, parents and practitioners as a definitive safety net. ”

    Source location

    Esma GUZEL · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to accommodate prior direct general practitioner review in 111 dispositions

    Wider context from the report

    “I have presented with evidence prior to and at inquest, that diligent questioning as to the nature of vomitus in a five-year-old patient, would have alerted a competent practitioner to the requirement for urgent hospitalisation. The facts of this case are that with the child continuing to be unwell eight hours later, the 111 algorithm led to her being driven by her father to an out-of-hours GP run service with no accessible paediatric infrastructure, where she arrived in a state of cardiac arrest. The 111 algorithm has been subject to modification in the light of these events, but I remain concerned that there is no detailed assessment of the degree of apparent concern, no accommodation of the prior direct review by a general practitioner, and no consideration of the timing of the request for advice, when reaching a disposition that does not involve referral to paediatric services. It is difficult to reconcile professional opinion that this patient should have been referred to paediatric services on the basis of features at 5 PM but not in the small hours of the morning with a deterioration in her condition by that stage. I have heard in evidence that an educational message on ‘rare causes for common symptoms’ could be circulated as a case report, but take the view that the lead professional bodies for both general practice and child health should consider how such information is effectively disseminated, and whether the algorithms and dispositions generated by the 111 service need further modification to maximise the chance of expedited optimal care for what is acknowledged to be an uncommon condition. I have heard in evidence that the 111 service is the default safety net arrangement in such circumstances, and this therefore requires endorsement by your professional bodies, if it is to command the confidence of patients, parents and practitioners as a definitive safety net. ”

    Source location

    Esma GUZEL · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    NHS Digital develops and manages NHS 111 algorithms, so responsibility for their modification rests with NHS Digital.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It was useful to hear about the change to the 111 algorithms as a result of learning from the circumstances surrounding Esma’s passing. The pathways used to inform 111 are currently developed and managed by NHS Digital to the NHS in England and to individual users, including but not limited to NHS Pathways and 111online.nhs.uk. The RCPCH are not required to and do not endorse these pathways but paediatricians represent the RCPCH to provide clinical advice and expertise to inform their shaping and to provide clinical expertise on ad hoc queries and patient safety concerns.”

    Source location

    Response from Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
    Page 3 · response
    Published 29 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Dispositions should not be varied solely by time of day; assessing interference with usual activities is considered the safer objective approach.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS Pathways is a comprehensive decision support system, which assesses symptoms presented at the time of a call and signposts to next level of care. Therefore, assessment of time of day is not routinely considered as it would not be clinically safe to change level of care signposted to be based upon time of day as a discriminator alone. However, the functional impairment question identifies when the presenting problem is interfering with normal daily activities and that would include sleeping. This is an assessment against the patient’s ‘usual activities’ so takes account of different patients having different baselines. In addition, NHS Pathways must consider differing daily routines encountered and ‘usual activities’ at different times of day may differ from person to person.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Digital
    Page 4 · response
    Published 29 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Investment to enable primary-care and out-of-hours record sharing would require action by NHS England, NHS Improvement and the Department of Health and Social Care.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Sharing of data/ clinical notes between primary care and the out-of-hours service There are some out-of-hours services who are able to see the whole GP record. It does not appear in this case it was possible from the Regulation 28 report. If both the out-of-hours service and the GP surgery use the same electronic notes system it is possible, with patient consent, to share all of the GP record. However, in many areas, the GP record is not visible to the out-of-hours service as both use different digital platforms. The RCGP would welcome investment in primary care (both GP and out-of-hours services) infrastructure, to enable best practice of sharing of all notes, subject to patient consent, to be rolled out across the NHS to benefit patient care. However, we recognise this will require significant investment form NHS England and NHS Improvement and the Department of Health and Social Care.”

    Source location

    Response from Royal College General Practitioners
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 September 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Automatic clinician transfer after prior healthcare review is not considered appropriate because it could delay assessment and compromise patient safety.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS Pathways assesses symptoms at the time of the call. If all patients who had a previous encounter with a healthcare provider were automatically transferred to a clinician this would prevent the initial NHS Pathways assessment occurring which has the potential to prevent a timely generation of an urgent disposition such as an ambulance dispatch. It is also not possible to interrogate previous encounters as part of the NHS Pathways assessment such to only transfer some to a clinician, as this would require reliance on caller’s recollection and knowledge, and health advisors to use discretion, neither of which is clinically safe or appropriate for telephone triage by non-clinical staff.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Digital
    Page 3 · response
    Published 29 September 2022

    Open published response
  8. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Josephine Celia BARKER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Josephine Celia Barker suffered an unwitnessed fall and serious head injury in an Aldi car park on 15 February 2019. She waited over two hours for an ambulance after five 999 calls, and later died from her injuries on 3 March 2019. The principal concerns included inadequate triage and re-triage, failure to use clinical information from paramedics at the scene, lack of callbacks and clinical review, and the diversion of an allocated ambulance to a welfare briefing.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Early termination of 999 call triage before completion

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The initial early exit of the first 999 call without full triage- this results in a category 3 response. There is no reason full triage could not have continued. ”

    Source location

    Josephine Celia BARKER · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 7 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    NHS Pathways tool failing to support triage of fluctuating or impaired consciousness

    Wider context from the report

    “8. There is a concern over the NHS Pathways tool’s ability to deal with fluctuating consciousness. This is because there is only an assessment on conscious or on unconscious so moving between the two states triggers the call handler to move into the conscious or unconscious pathway respectively but is not able to take into account fully that consciousness level is impaired or mixed. This is considered as a huge challenge to any call handler even a clinician as it then is not established if the patient is conscious or unconscious and it forces the call handler to restart triage with each change. I was told that this can ”

    Source location

    Josephine Celia BARKER · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 8 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Incorporate feedback about fluctuating consciousness into the ongoing NHS Pathways review and governance cycle.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS Pathways have not been advised that this principle is a challenging one for health advisors to date but will take this feedback into account in our ongoing review and governance cycle.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Improvement
    Page 3 · response
    Published 16 March 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing NHS Pathways early-exit options and clinical validation arrangements adequately manage complex or incompletely triaged calls.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “NHS Pathways has a function called ‘Early Exit’ which the health advisors can use for certain scenarios and reasons.”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Improvement
    Page 2 · response
    Published 16 March 2022

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing training and triage functions adequately address changing or fluctuating consciousness during calls.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Health advisors are supported with training materials and undergo core learning. NHS Pathways provides a number of training materials which support health advisors relating to the identification of consciousness, unconsciousness or reduced consciousness. This includes a ‘Hot Topics on Levels of Consciousness and Checking Breathing and Consciousness’. Assessing consciousness is also heavily featured throughout the Pre-Module Learning for Core Module 1 (with a dedicated section on Levels of Consciousness, there is a video to support this). This material includes the following statement: “If you were presented with a patient who couldn’t be woken or was very difficult to wake (unconscious or semi-conscious), you would need to select”

    Source location

    Response from NHS Improvement
    Page 2 · response
    Published 16 March 2022

    Open published response
  9. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Cyril Cheetham · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Cyril Cheetham, aged 91 and resident in a care home, became unwell on 20.02.19, was admitted to hospital later that day, placed on an end-of-life pathway, and died on 25.02.19. The principal concern was that unclear responsibility between Mastercall and his own GP resulted in no same-day GP attendance, alongside concerns that the ATT service lacked adequate auditing and that its triage arrangements could delay hospital admission and contribute to future deaths.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Additional telephone triage causing delays in admission for elderly patients

    Wider context from the report

    “The ATT services introduces an additional layer of triage based on a telephone conversation between a clinician at Mastercall and someone at the care home, who may be a carer or a nurse, and may be experienced or inexperienced, rather than that person calling 999. It is of concern to me that this additional layer may result in a delay in admission, which for an elderly patient with likely co-morbidities, will affect their prospects. It was accepted that there was no audit or research carried out in respect of any deaths arising from delay in admission where the ATT service was used. The net benefit seems to have been calculated by reference to resource savings alone. I am concerned that the ATT service is being resourced and provided (nationally) without any adequate or true audit of its perceived net benefit, and that its use may be costing lives, either at all or at an unacceptable level. ”

    Source location

    Cyril Cheetham · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 3 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Review all calls to the Alternative to Transfer service to provide immediate assurance about service safety.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “addition, to provide more immediate assurance, all calls to the ATT service are being reviewed.”

    Source location

    2021-0022-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 February 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Implement revised ATT visit criteria requiring Mastercall visits after telephone assessment, unless the patient’s GP elects to visit the same day.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “This issue has been addressed through a system wide discussion; essentially the issue as described within your report arose due to a view taken on ‘at risk of admission’. It has therefore been agreed that any visit required following initial ATT telephone assessment will be performed by Mastercall. The only exception to this will be in circumstances where a GP expresses a preference to undertake the visit which must happen on the same day. This process provides assurance that the patient will be seen the same day but does allow the flexibility of the patient’s own GP, who knows the patient best, to remain involved as appropriate.”

    Source location

    2021-0022-Response-from-Stockport-CCG-Redacted
    Page 3 · response
    Published 4 February 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing contract monitoring, eligibility guidance and senior-clinician triage were considered adequate, with no significant concerns identified.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I am advised that the Stockport CCG has provided a response to you explaining the regular contract monitoring that is in place with Mastercall, the provider of the ‘Alternative to Transfer’ (ATT) service, and confirming that no significant concerns have been identified by the CCG. I am further advised that clear guidance is in place in relation to the patients that meet the criteria for the service and that calls to the service are triaged by senior clinicians.”

    Source location

    2021-0022-Response-from-Dept-of-Health-and-Social-Care-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 4 February 2021

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Existing specifications, guidance and senior-clinician triage are considered sufficient to redirect inappropriate ATT calls to 999.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Service Specifications are rigorous with excellent performance by Mastercall and communications provide clear guidance in relation to which patients are suitable for their service and which should be directed to 999. Calls into the service are triaged by a senior clinician and I am therefore confident that any inappropriate call to the ATT service from a care home or ambulance crew would be promptly redirected to 999.”

    Source location

    2021-0022-Response-from-Stockport-CCG-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 4 February 2021

    Open published response
  10. South Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Thomas Rawnsley · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Thomas Rawnsley, a residential nursing home resident, developed a chest infection, later collapsed at the home and died in hospital on 4 February 2015. Concerns included the quality of safety-netting advice, the risks of telephone consultations and incomplete information during clinical triage, and inaccuracies or omissions when paramedic advice was transferred to patient information leaflets.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to use a standard set of initial questions during clinical triage

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) There is a standard set of questions asked by the call handler on a 111 or 999 call which is not then replicated for clinicians who subsequently triage a patient. Without a standard set of initial questions asked it is entirely possible that clinicians will provide advice in isolation of other important matters. This could be as simple as current medications that the patient routinely takes or current diagnosis the patient has which impact upon the advice to be provided. This may lead to incomplete or worse, inappropriate advice being given to patients during a clinical triage. ”

    Source location

    Thomas Rawnsley · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Replicating NHS 111’s standard questions for subsequent clinicians is considered unnecessary because the existing assessment and information-sharing process is sufficient.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In light of this, we consider that replicating the standard set of questions asked by 111 call handlers to clinicians subsequently involved, would not improve the process which is in place, as described above.”

    Source location

    2020-0283-Response-from-NHS-National-Medical-Director-Redacted
    Page 4 · response
    Published 6 January 2021

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026